This is an application for review brought by the applicants in terms of s 26 of the High Court Act [Chapter 7:07] as read with r 62(1) of the High Court Rules SI 202/21. Four grounds of review are stated by the applicants ex-facie the application More
The applicant, a Trust, instituted the instant application seeking an order directing the first respondent to convene a meeting of the first respondent’s creditors on or before 15 November 2017 for the purpose of considering “the resolutions tabulated by the applicant.” That relief is being sought pending the determination of the matter. More
This is an application for the dismissal of the application for review which was filed by the three respondents under Case Number HC 9652/14. The application is being made in terms of Order 32 r 236 (3) (b) of the High Court Rules, 1971, on the ground that the respondents, having been served with the applicants’ notice of opposition and opposing affidavits, failed to file an answering affidavit or to set the matter down for hearing within one month after the filing of the opposing papers. The application is opposed by the respondents on the ground that after they had... More
This is an application for an interdict brought by the applicant against the respondents and all those who act through them. Applicant alleges that it is a church, which has been in existence since 1960, owning several properties. On the other hand, the respondents are portrayed as ex-members of a breakaway faction of the same. More
On 15 September 2021 an application was filed by The Trustees Manicaland Commercial Federation Trust wherein it sought an order declaring;
a. First respondent’s 2020 supplementary budget process and consequent budget to be flawed and in contravention of s219 of the Urban Councils Act;
b. First respondent’s budget process 2021 budget process and consequent budget to be flawed and in contravention of s219 of the Urban Councils Act;
c. The consequent increases from those budget processes and budgets to be unaffordable to ratepayers given the Covid 19 induced economic turmoil;
d. And as a result, that the parties be ordered... More
The parties appeared before this court arguing over agreement of sale of a certain piece of immovable property known as Remaining Extent Of Lot 301 of Greendale situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 6092 sqm including vested roadway held under Deed of transfer No 450/89.The respondent deed of transfer is annexed to the opposing affidavit marked annexure B1-B3.The immovable property is registered in the respondent is also described in B2 as “ Certain piece of land being the remaining extent of lot 301 of Greendale situate in the District of Salisbury measuring 6092 sqm including vested roadway” A dispute... More
The applicant seeks an order confirming that the agreement of sale which it entered into with the first respondent in respect of certain immovable property is valid and binding. Pursuant to such confirmation, it seeks an order evicting the first respondent and all those claiming their right on occupation through her from the said residential property. The property in question was identified as Stand No. 1191 Mandara Township, Zvishavane (“the property”). More
This matter came before me through the urgent chamber book. The relief sought was that the second respondent be interdicted from removing the applicant’s property which had been placed under judicial attachment pursuant to an order granted in case number HC1863/16, and that the Sheriff be further interdicted from acting in any other manner on the strength of any writ issued in respect of this order. More
There is an affiliation agreement signed on 3 October 2016 between Stiching Young Africa International and Young Africa Zimbabwe. The 2nd respondent, Young Africa International says Young Africa Zimbabwe is as a matter of fact the applicant i.e. Young Africa Trust. The applicant on the other hand says it is not the same as Young Africa Zimbabwe. Applicant dissociates itself from the name Young Africa Zimbabwe. The 2nd respondent says it derives its authority from the affiliate agreement to interfere in the affairs of the applicant. In fact, what sparked this dispute is the dismissal and termination of the applicant’s... More
The plaintiff’s claim against the defendant is for the cancellation of the verbal lease agreement in respect of two tennis courts situate at Alexandra Club, eviction of the defendant therefrom, holding over damages of $460 per month from August, 2010 to date of eviction plus costs of suit More
This is an urgent chamber application in which the applicant seeks a provisional order in the following terms;-
“2. INTERIM RELIEF
2.1 Pending the final determination of the action in case No. HC 8403/12, the Applicant is granted the following relief;-
a) That the first, second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth Respondent be and are hereby
interdicted from signing or processing transfer papers to pass ownership of stand 75 Avondale Extension 2, measuring 1980 square metres from Total
Communication Media (Pvt) Ltd into the 3rd Respondent’s name.
b) The first Respondent be and is hereby ordered to place a caveat... More
Legal practitioners should keep up to date with and give cognizance to rules of the courts. They should not waste the court’s time by bringing ludicrous applications before the court. The determination of cases should not be slowed or deferred unessentially because a legal practitioner has failed to assimilate the rules. This was the case in this matter. More
A raft of measures meant to comply with the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines on the prevention containment and treatment of Coronavirus disease commonly known as COVID19 prompted the Minister of Health and Child Care and indeed the Government of Zimbabwe to make an order for National lockdown under Statutory Instrument 83 of 2020 on 28 March with effective date of operation 30 March 2020. The order among other important provisions provides that the supply of water and electricity services are critical and essential services. The virus is real and indeed a menace as evidenced by reports of the numbers... More
The applicants seek an order cancelling the first to seventh respondents’ title in immovable properties mentioned hereunder and the reinstatement of the second applicant’s title in the properties. The properties in issue are: More
